MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411929628 · doi:10.3384/ecp214003

Individual Puck Possessions Part I

2025· article· en· W4411929628 on OpenAlexafffund
Evan Iaboni, Sebastian Negulescu, Miles Pitassi, Fauzan Lodhi, Tim Brecht

Bibliographic record

VenueLinköping electronic conference proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we use puck and player tracking data from the 2023- 24 NHL season to study individual player possessions (focusing on 5v5 situations). We study metrics such as possession count, average and total possession duration, average and total distance travelled with the puck, and examine relationships between these metrics and traditional measures of success (i.e., goals, assists and points). A key finding is that individual offensive zone possession is strongly correlated with points (r = 0.70) and is moderately correlated with goals (r = 0.64), assists (r = 0.54), and shots on goal (r = 0.69). We also observe differences in individual possessions based on position (forwards versus defence), zone of play, and strength and large and statistically significant differences between top ranked players and league averages (across most possession metrics). Finally, we examine the benefits of our individual possession metrics and find that they are highly stable (so they are useful for predictions), able to differentiate players, and provide information not captured by existing metrics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinköping electronic conference proceedingsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207